IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tea/wpaper/1006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public access to the countryside: An exploration of the costs and benefits of farmland walking trails

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Howley

    (Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland)

  • Edel Doherty

    (Gibson Institute of Land, Food and the Environment, Queen’s University Belfast)

  • Cathal Buckley

    (Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland)

  • Stephen Hynes

    (Department of Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland)

  • Tom van Rensburg

    (Department of Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland)

  • Stuart Green

    (Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland)

Abstract

Despite the potential benefits accruing from use of the rural landscape access to farmland is a contentious issue with many landowners restricting public access. Within this context, this paper first explores general public preferences and willingness to pay for farmland walking trails in the Irish countryside. Second this paper examines farmers’ willingness to participate in a hypothetical walking scheme whereby the general public will be allowed access to specific trails. Results suggest that individuals are not a homogeneous group with regard to their preferences for farmland walking trails as there are significant differences between likely users and non-users. From a supply perspective results suggest that a significant number of landowners are willing to allow public access provided there is no personal cost to them. In addition, this paper identified significant regional variations in farmers’ attitudes relating to public access. More generally, the analysis presented here would suggest that there is significant scope for policy intervention to improve public access to the countryside.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Howley & Edel Doherty & Cathal Buckley & Stephen Hynes & Tom van Rensburg & Stuart Green, 2010. "Public access to the countryside: An exploration of the costs and benefits of farmland walking trails," Working Papers 1006, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    • Handle: RePEc:tea:wpaper:1006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.teagasc.ie/rural-economy/downloads/workingpapers/10wpre06.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Langford* & Areti Kontogianni & Mihalis Skourtos & Stavros Georgiou & Ian Bateman, 1998. "Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
    2. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    3. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    4. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    5. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    6. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    7. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    8. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    9. R. M. Bennett & R. B. Tranter & R. J. P. Blaney, 2003. "The Value of Countryside Access: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors to the Ridgeway National Trail in the United Kingdom," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(5), pages 659-671.
    10. Hynes, Stephen & Farrelly, Niall & Murphy, Eithne & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2008. "Modelling habitat conservation and participation in agri-environmental schemes: A spatial microsimulation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 258-269, June.
    11. Cathal Buckley & Stephen Hynes & Tom van Rensburg & Edel Doherty, 2009. "Walking in the Irish countryside: landowner preferences and attitudes to improved public access provision," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(8), pages 1053-1070.
    12. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    13. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    15. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    16. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    17. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
    18. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    19. Catherine Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 124-139, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen & van Rensburg, Tom M., 2011. "The effect of using labelled alternatives in stated choice experiments: an exploration focusing on farmland walking trails in Ireland," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108792, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen & van Rensburg, Thomas, 2012. "Labelling effects in discrete choice experiments," Working Papers 148831, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    6. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    7. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    8. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    9. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    10. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    11. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    12. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    13. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    14. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    15. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    16. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. repec:ken:wpaper:0805 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    19. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    20. Haitao Yin, 2013. "Insurance Approach for Financing Extreme Climate Event Losses in China: A Status Analysis," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013035, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    21. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tea:wpaper:1006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John Lennon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/reteaie.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.